Robert E. Shaffer v. Harold v. Field, Superintendent of California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California

Ninth Circuit

Robert E. Shaffer v. Harold v. Field, Superintendent of California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California

484 F.2d 1196, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8188

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 1973

Docket72-1707

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 484 F.2d 1196 (Robert E. Shaffer v. Harold v. Field, Superintendent of California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert E. Shaffer v. Harold v. Field, Superintendent of California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California, 484 F.2d 1196, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8188 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before MERRILL, BROWNING, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner was convicted of a violation of California Penal Code § 187. After exhausting state remedies he applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court denied the writ. See Shaffer v. Field, 339 F.Supp. 997 (C.D.Cal.1972).

Considering the issues in the order presented in the district court’s opinion, we hold as follows:

1. Admission of the spontaneous statements of the dying victim did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. “The determination of whether, in a particular case, the application of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause . . . calls for an examination of all the circumstances of the case. The relevant factual inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the unavailability of the declarant for cross-examination deprived the jury of a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the extrajudicial declaration.” United States v. Adams, 446 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 1971). The trustworthiness of spontaneous statements is established on grounds distinct from the general credibility of the declarant. The declarant’s unavailability did not deprive the jury of a basis for evaluating the truth of the declarations.

2. The warrantless entry of petitioner’s locker at the sheriff substation, without his consent, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since the circumstances under which the lockers were held and used by sheriff’s employees demonstrate that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in their use, there was no “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

*1198 3. The “Baumgartner” instruction does not necessarily violate due process of law, United States v. Moore, 429 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1970), and we find no violation on the facts of this case.

4. We adopt the district court’s holding that the trial court’s failure to give a manslaughter instruction did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. See Shaffer v. Field, supra, 339 F.Supp. at 1004-1005.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Before MERRILL, BROWNING, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner was convicted of a violation of California Penal Code § 187. After exhausting state remedies he applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court denied the writ. See Shaffer v. Field, 339 F.Supp. 997 (C.D.Cal.1972).

Considering the issues in the order presented in the district court’s opinion, we hold as follows:

1. Admission of the spontaneous statements of the dying victim did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. “The determination of whether, in a particular case, the application of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause . . . calls for an examination of all the circumstances of the case. The relevant factual inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the unavailability of the declarant for cross-examination deprived the jury of a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the extrajudicial declaration.” United States v. Adams, 446 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 1971). The trustworthiness of spontaneous statements is established on grounds distinct from the general credibility of the declarant. The declarant’s unavailability did not deprive the jury of a basis for evaluating the truth of the declarations.

2. The warrantless entry of petitioner’s locker at the sheriff substation, without his consent, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since the circumstances under which the lockers were held and used by sheriff’s employees demonstrate that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in their use, there was no “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

*1198 3. The “Baumgartner” instruction does not necessarily violate due process of law, United States v. Moore, 429 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1970), and we find no violation on the facts of this case.

4. We adopt the district court’s holding that the trial court’s failure to give a manslaughter instruction did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. See Shaffer v. Field, supra, 339 F.Supp. at 1004-1005.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 F.2d 1196, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-e-shaffer-v-harold-v-field-superintendent-of-california-mens-ca9-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack